Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2458/2014 observes that the Board could not accept the author’s statements on his asylum motives and the costs of his departure from Afghanistan, and considered them as fabricated and escalating. The Board also considered that the letters of recommendation and identification documents produced by the author appeared fraudulent, and that the author’s overall credibility has been impacted by his statement that, in connection with his previous application for asylum in Norway in 2003, he was paid to obtain asylum for another person, and by the inconsistent statements to the Norwegian authorities. The Committee also notes that the author failed to provide to the Board a convincing statement that would substantiate the fact that he had converted to Christianity. In light of the above, the Committee considers that the author’s claims of a violation of his right to a fair trial in the context of article 13, and of discrimination, including as an asylum seeker, under article 26 of the Covenant and under article 2, read in conjunction with article 14 of the Covenant, are insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence 35, the Committee considers the author’s claims under article 14 of the Covenant to be inadmissible ratione materiae, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee further notes the State party’s objection to admissibility of the author’s claim under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant as manifestly ill-founded. In that regard, the Committee notes the author’s argument that the existence of substantial grounds to believe that he would face a risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, if removed to Afghanistan, has not been properly assessed, since he can be perceived as Christian due to a suspected distribution of Bibles. The Committee also notes that the author was removed to Afghanistan in February 2017 and that he subsequently fled to Turkey. In addition, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the existence of a real and personal risk of irreparable harm for the author, if removed to his country of origin, has been properly assessed against the different sources of information, including the witness statements. The Committee observes that the State party’s authorities considered the author’s reasons to flee Afghanistan and the related asylum motives as not substantiated, taking into account the inconsistency and lack of credibility, given that the letters of recommendation by the Australian military forces were considered as fraudulent and the CTU, as an alleged employer, could not confirm that the author served for them as translator in Afghanistan. The Board found that it could not consider the author’s statement of being persecuted prior to his departure from Afghanistan a fact because the author’s statement on his conflicts prior to his departure from Afghanistan were non-credible and fabricated (paras. 4.5 and 4.10) and that the author has also failed to establish that he risks circumstances contrary to article 6 or 7 of the Covenant as a consequence of his alleged conversion to Christianity, if returned to Afghanistan (para. 4.11). The Committee further observes the State party’s objection that the author did not present any new information in his request for re-opening of the asylum procedure, nor on his potentially adverse treatment following his return to Afghanistan on 28 February 2017. 8.7 While recalling its jurisprudence that certain kinds of abuse by private individuals may be of such scope and intensity as to amount to persecution if the authorities are not able or willing to offer protection (against the author’s declaration as mortard in Afghanistan in the present case),36 the Committee considers that the author has not convincingly explained the reasons, except his disagreement with the factual conclusions of the State party,37 why he fears that his forcible return to Afghanistan would result in a risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee considers this part of the communication inadmissible due to a lack of sufficient substantiation, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 As regards indirect claims of a risk of violation of article 18, if removed to Afghanistan, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s conversion to Christianity has not been genuine, that his sur place motive for asylum has not been arbitrarily assessed, and that the authorities considered that the author had not been a person of profile 35 36 37 Fn. 30. See e.g. I.K. v. Denmark, para. 9.7; and Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), para. 7.5. See P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.4. 11